Readers' comments

This decision is undoubtedly an achievement - of a sort. Of what sort, it is too early to say. The UK government deserves great credit for holding out last June against making the CJEU the final arbiter of patent law (it's a very technical subject - the distinguished judges of that Court don't understand it, and when the Courts send them questions on intellectual property - on trade marks or SPCs, for example - the answers are often unsatisfactory, not to say Delphic, which slows down the administration of justice and makes life difficult for all). UK civil servants deserve equal credit for finding an ingenious legal solution that the Parliament could accept (it's too early to be certain that it works, but let's hope it does).

What is rather hard to take is the self-congratulation of European politicians (though we understand they need a success, or at least something that can be presented as one). The enormous cost-savings that are trumpeted are for protection in all countries in the European Union. This is almost as unnecessary (if not quite as expensive) as filing in all countries of the world. At present, the proportion of patentees who do the former is about 1% (mostly concerns who are either very rich or sub-optimally advised). This proportion may now increase considerably - even double? The costs for renewal fees are not yet known, but there is talk of setting them at a level corresponding to the average number of countries protected today (better if they'd chosen the mode rather than the mean). Most smaller companies would be better off in filing in two or three - maybe up to half a dozen. To file in all countries may make politicians happy (Europe is a single domain) as well as your patent attorney (more business) but is less beneficial to your cash flow.

You report that several industrial firms are unhappy with the new system. They are not the only ones. Only time can tell how well the new system will work - if it works at all. It could have been so much better! The UK IPO made great efforts to consult with stakeholders, increasing as matters advanced - but they were handicapped by the insistence of negotiating partners on secrecy. The European Parliament was very reluctant to take advice from experts (the European patent judges' comments were ignored).

However, even if this is a disappointment, it is not a disaster. National patents are still available as an alternative. They may become increasingly popular. That, sadly, could damage the European Patent Office (EPO). The existing system whereby the EPO grants a bundle of national patents which came in in 1978 has worked well. The EPO is not perfect - who is? - but it's at least as good as, and perhaps better than, any other major world patent office. To a great extent this is because of competition (or the threat of competition) with national offices. This has given confidence to users – they have an alternative – and encouragement to the EPO to consult with users – who if dissatisfied may go elsewhere. That is why it is wrong-headed to call for the abolition of national offices. They have a job to do for some decades yet.

You draw the wrong conclusions from your graph. The reasons European national patent offices receive few applications from foreigners is that if you want an option on a lot of countries, filing a European patent application is dramatically less expensive than picking them off one by one.

This area is replete with bad statistics. The financial analysis used to justify the (dubious) cost estimates used to support the economics of the proposal was done some time ago. Even then it plucked numbers from the air. In recent years the translation costs for European patents have dropped dramatically as the London Agreement on translations, concluded a few years ago, mean that for many countries there is no need for a translation and for others only part of the patent (the claims) needs to be translated.

As for the financial justification for the unified court, that too was done a few years ago and on the basis of essentially no reliable statistics. A guess was taken as to how many cases might benefit from a Europe-wide decision.

This project started with good aims, a unified patent and a unified patent court, however the urge to drive something through for political reasons has resulted in a fudge that may destabilise the finances of the patent system.

The 1997 European Patent Office Annual report had the somewhat resonant slogan on the front "One Europe, One Currency, One Patent". Just like the European currency, this proposal is based on insufficient analysis. Let us hope the Patents don't go the same way as the currency.

Stop with this "bundle of national patents" rubbish and just unify the system as has been done with Trade marks.

Then get on with Regulating (with a CAPITAL R) copyright. Yes I said it. Stop beating around the bush and just do it.

Spain and Italy will comply eventually. They are just irritated that a source of national income is going to be swept from under their feet. Well sorry! The rest of the EU can't wait for your petty squabbling.

Having filed myself a few patents in the sixties (I'm 81 now), I never dealt with a lawyer then. Just engineers.

It was when patent filing and often artificially created disputes started being the norm that the activity became lawyer dominated as most insurance and probably other.

That's why a much larger number of companies than you imagine avoid filing patents nowadays and rely instead on processes almost immune to reverse engineering and a close knitted home community of researchers and developers.

And "planned obsolescence", "built in" under-development and a few other tricks. All excellent for protection and continuous innovation.

Although definitely outdated, I am not totally unaware of the patent filing world as you can easily imagine.

IPO sites of several countries included before "triadic" patents were the norm.

Do you realise how much money is wasted on our current inefficient system? We have a 'unified' system of sort that is so inefficient it is laughable. It is probably quicker to get a patent in China than in every EU state right now.

Do you think that is how the EU becomes competitive on a global scale? Do you? Having worse infrastructure than China. Hmm??

Dare I say it, one of the many examples of the tireless and useful work done by those - very few - 'Eurocrats' - to use one of the nicer ways TE readers refer to EU civil servants - for the greater good of life in a globalised and globalising world (and economic union), and also one of the many zillions of examples of how Member States intervene negatively with the sole aim of preserving their own interests, and to hell with the greater good!
While on the subject, I take the opportunity of reflecting on how sad it is that so many of my fellow Brits constantly portray in such a negative light the work of EU civil servants, rejecting the "meddling from Brussels", when, paradoxically, the UK happens to be one of the allegedly most open economies of the EU, and should otherwise support how much more open the EU is compared to any other trading bloc (thanks in no small part to the work of EU officials whose professional life is dedicated to making it so) . Is this a paradox?
Before anyone says otherwise, I am not saying that everything EU civil servants do is perfect or worthwhile!!!

Good. We need European patents. Better for people to have a European patent and be protected in Europe and the world instead of only a national patent that may not even be valid in other countries.

Lets just hope this system doesn't turn into a monster, like in the US. In the US people can patent anything, shape of buttons, software functions, device functions, what words you can say, what you can eat and "co2".